See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313538653

Action-research and early childhood teachers in Chile: analysis of a teacher

professional development experience

Article  in  Early Years · February 2017

DOI: 10.1080/09575146.2017.1288088

CITATION READS

1 1,130

2 authors:

Paula Guerra Ignacio Figueroa Céspedes

Universidad Autónoma De Chile Universidad Diego Portales
12 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fondecyt 1120550 "Creencias epistemológicas, sobre el aprendizaje y la enseñanza en contextos de pobreza, de profesores en servicio, estudiantes de pedagogía y
formadores de profesores. "Student teachers, inservice teachers and teacher educators epistemological beliefs and beliefs on teaching and learning in poverty contexts"
View project

Comunidades profesionales de aprendizaje entre educadoras de párvulos orientadas a implementar interacciones de calidad con los niños: Análisis de las dinámicas,
factores contextuales y aprendizaje profesional View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paula Guerra on 03 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Authors:
Paula Guerra, PhD in Education1
Ignacio Figueroa, Master in Cognitive Development
Centro de Desarrollo Cognitivo (Cognitive Development Centre)
Universidad Diego Portales. Santiago. Chile
Grajales 1746 Santiago. Chile

Word count: 6970

Action-Research and Early Childhood teachers in Chile: analysis of a teacher professional

development experience 2

In early childhood education, teacher professional development is crucial due to the impact
of teachers on children’s learning. This study presents the experience of action-research
included in a teacher professional development program focused on improving pedagogical
interaction from a sociocultural perspective. From 2012 to 2015, three cohorts of early
childhood teachers from nursery schools located in vulnerable contexts participated in this
program. These teachers developed intervention plans according to the action-research
framework. In this report, these plans are analysed through a qualitative content analysis.
Reports made by the participants and interviews with three tutors are also analysed. The
results of the intervention plans show that most of them are focused on teacher professional
development using video supported reflection to enhance the quality of interaction with
children. In the reports, teachers identified important improvements in their skills,
knowledge, beliefs and practices, and developed critical reflection on the process. Tutors
found some problems during the program, which took them into a reflection process that led
to transformations in their practice. These results are discussed in the context of a neoliberal
society that might interfere with the development of alternative programs.

1
Corresponding author paula.guerra@mail.udp.cl
2
Publicado en Guerra, P., & Figueroa, I. (2017). Action-research and early childhood teachers in Chile: analysis of a
teacher professional development experience. Early Years. http://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2017.1288088.
Disponible en http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09575146.2017.1288088
 Keywords: mediation criteria; professional learning communities; professional learning.

Introduction

Over the last 25 years, high-quality preschool education has been shown to have a strong and
positive effect on children’s development (Barnett 1998; Camilli et al. 2010; Cortázar 2015;
NICHD 2005; NICHD ECCRN 2000). These studies have identified different variables that emerge
as relevant features of high-quality preschool education. One of them refers to the role of teachers
in the classroom, which is considered one of the most relevant proximal variable in children’s
development (Burchinal et al. 2010; Dunn 1993; Eurofound 2015; Howes 1997; NICHD ECCRN
2002). The quality of teachers’ practice and interactions with students might enhance children’s
development, but these practices should be continuously sup- ported by high-quality professional
development in order to achieve positive results for children. The emphasis on the role of teachers
is acknowledged by the official National Preschool Curriculum of Chile, which fosters a mediated
teaching practice that enriches the learning process. In these documents, teachers are considered as
reflective and active inquirers involved in a spiral of research and analysis of the teaching and
learning process (Minister of Education, 2001).

Despite the national consensus about the importance of these topics, preschool teachers’
practices would appear to limit the implementation of these intentions. Evidence of these
deficiencies in the Chilean context are the reports from Strasser, Lissi, and Silva (2009) and Herrera
et al. (2005), who identified a great predominance of non-instructional practices (e.g., non-
structured games without supervision or teacher mediation, snacks, and behavioural management),
few activities related to reading, and a complete lack of vocabulary development tasks.

Furthermore, these studies can be complemented with the results obtained from the Chilean
National Teacher Evaluation System. This includes several instruments, such as a portfolio
composed of a class video and a written analysis. These products provide evidence of the teachers’
practices and reflection, and they are evaluated by trained teachers using a rubric. Based on the
results, teachers are evaluated as: outstanding, competent, basic or unsatisfactory. Sun et al. (2011)
present an analysis of the preschool teachers’ results in which high-quality pedagogical interaction
is achieved only by 40% of the teachers, who were evaluated as competent or outstanding, while
their reflective abilities were not fully developed given that only 30% of preschool teachers
analysed teaching in a deep and holistic way, 40% were able to reflect on the success of a class and
only 20% acknowledged the different factors related to students’ learning in their reflection
In this context, teachers’ professional development should be an important aspect to ensure
the quality of preschool education. Unfortunately, as Borko (2004) claims, current professional
development is inadequate for the actual needs of the teaching and learning process. This might be
related to a traditional teaching model that is adopted by in-service teacher education, where
teachers are considered as passive receptors of knowledge developed by experts, with a limited
role in their own professional learning process (Lieberman, 1995; Buysse, Sparkmany, and Wesley,
2003).
Reports describing the Chilean and Latin American situation have shown that a significant
percentage of in-service teacher education has focused on curricular and didactic upgrading, under
the assumption of “deficit” in teachers’ knowledge and skills. This situation reflects that in-service
teacher education might be based on a compensatory logic rather than being regarded as only one
important element of the teacher professional development process. (Ávalos, 2007;
OREALC/UNESCO, 2013).
High-quality professional development programs have been described as experiences
strongly linked with practice and reflection, which include participants’ needs and interests, guided
by specialized professionals that give continuous support and feedback (Eurofound 2015).
According to the Eurofound report (2015), these experiences increase the participants’ pedagogical
awareness and professional comprehension and, through a focus on reflective practice, the
identification of strengths and weaknesses in daily pedagogical practice. The improvement of these
abilities might foster a redefinition of teachers’ roles that leads to a change in their practices and
strategies towards children and their families.

In order to promote an alternative perspective of professional development, a two-year

program for early childhood teachers was developed. It was called "Learning Mediation Strategies
from the perspective of action-research as an approach to teacher education”, and it was focused
on the promotion of mediated learning in the context of the action-research process. From a
sociocultural perspective, in which human mental activities are determined by social, cultural, and
historical factors and reflect a dynamic interdependence between the social and individual process
(John-Steiner and Mahn, 1996; Vygotsky, 1988), the aim of this program was to foster the teachers’
role as mediators of learning. This means that teachers were expected to select and organize the
stimuli from the environment in order to foster the learners’ cognitive skills, guided by pedagogical
aims and the cultural demands of the context (Feuerstein, 1990). This idea is an essential aspect of
the Theory of Cognitive Modifiability in which “modifiability is considered to be the basic
condition of the human organism, and the individual’s manifest level of performance at any given
point in development cannot be regarded as fixed or immutable, much less a reliable indicator of
future performance” (Feuerstein, Falik, Rand and Feuerstein, 2006, 6). The program was based on
a reflective and collaborative construction of pedagogical tools using action-research as the main
approach for the analysis of teaching practices. In this dynamic, teachers were involved in a
reflective spiral of planning, acting, analysing, reflecting, and re-planning and so on (Kemmis and
Wilkinson, 1998), that allowed deep analysis of the teachers’ practice in order to develop higher
quality interactions with children. This process was carried out within two contexts: video
supported reflection in the first year and professional learning communities in the second year.
Video supported reflection consists in a teacher’s recorded lesson and a self-reflection on this
performance. Tutors study these materials and provide feedback based on their analysis. In the
same fashion, professional learning communities are groups of teachers that develop a shared and
collaborative reflection about their practices. Both contexts provide a collaborative perspective: in
the first one, there is a one-to-one relationship where teachers reflect on their practices in close
collaboration with their tutors, while in the second case a collective space provides support and
active participation in the analysis of teachers’ practices.

Action-research
New alternatives to address the sociocultural dimension of teacher education have emerged. One
of these is action-research. As we understand it, action-research provides teachers with the tools to
investigate their own practices in a broader sense (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). In Chile, action-
research was a relevant strategy for popular education during the dictatorship in the 80s. Nowadays,
action research is linked to reflection and enquiry in the standards for early childhood teachers, but
it is not among the main tools for teacher development. This may reflect the predominance of
individual teacher improvement, instead of the collective agency that action-research would foster.

Action-research is defined as the study of a social situation with a view to improving its
quality (Elliott 1994). This process generally follows a spiral sequence that involves planning,
identification of facts, analysis, implementation and evaluation (Lingard, Albert, and Levinson
2008). Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) have pointed out that each step is accomplished in a better
way by collaboratively creating participatory processes of action-research. Besides, action-research
enables teachers to become ‘knowledge generators rather than appliers of knowledge generated by
outsiders’ (Elliott 1994, 133).

According to Carr and Kemmis (1986), action-research involves a deep analysis of teachers’
practices in order to improve and understand them, but it also aims to improve the situation in
which the practice takes place. In that respect, action-research is more than an analysis of a
pedagogical technique; it provides teachers with the tools to investigate their own practices in a
broader sense.

In this respect, action-research might foster change in a broad range of situations, not limited
to the improvement of teachers’ practices, but also including the promotion of changes in the
quality of social relationships established in the schools. For example, in a report of an action-
research experience, Davis and Cooke (1998) show that teachers and parents changed the
hegemonic paradigm of social structure and decision-making process that has excluded relevant
voices in the educational context. In this experience, adults were models for children in the
promotion of democratic participation, since they became aware of the need to challenge the
traditional relationship between teachers and families and felt empowered to set up a democratic
school community. The emphasis on participation described in this report reflects a core feature of
action-research in which all participants are regarded as peers and they experience, maybe for the
first time, that their voices are valid and relevant. This situation might lead participants to become
increasingly empowered as they are treated as equals (Boog, 2003).

Chilean early childhood educational system

Chile has a strong tradition in the provision of education for children between birth and 5 years,
with an enrolment rate of 50.3% (Minister of Social Development, 2016) which reflects an
important increment in the number of nurseries due to the policies developed by the previous
governments. Besides, since 2013, the enrolment of 5-year-old children in kindergarten is
compulsory.
The Chilean early childhood educational system is mainly financed by funds from the State,
through three modalities: schools for children from 4 to 5 years; programs from the National Board
of Nursery Schools (JUNJI as its acronym in Spanish) working with children from 0 to 4 years;
and programs from Integra Foundations that also work with children from 0 to 4 years (Peralta,
2011). In the case of schools, there are two types: public, administered by municipalities, and
private, subsidized by the State.
Despite this increase in the number of nurseries available, the quality of preschool education
has not improved accordingly. Most classrooms remain as places that do not provide high-quality
pedagogical experiences as reported earlier in this paper. National concern about this issue is
growing and has been focused on structural factors, such as curricular benchmarks, adult-child
ratios or the standards for early childhood teacher programs (Alarcón et al. 2015).
Early childhood education is part of the Chilean educational system. For the last 35 years
this system has been shaped by a series of neoliberal policies, which are focused on account- ability,
free school choice by a voucher system, teachers’ salary policies linked to schools’ results in
national standardized tests, and an extensive, standardized student evaluation system.
Consequently, some of the features of this system have become a matter of concern in early
childhood education. Peralta (2011) acknowledges a tendency to instrumentalize this level as a
result of the competition that emerges in a Standardized-Test-Oriented system. In that sense, the
focus of early childhood education has been moving to a restricted vision of learning outcomes due
to the relevance of standardized tests. In this situation, Chilean early childhood education is required to
develop an early scholarisation process focused exclusively on the areas of language and mathematics
instead of an integral approach to child development (Pardo and Woodrow 2014), although this contradicts
the emphasis of the National Curriculum for this level.

Methodology

Early childhood teacher development program: “Learning Mediation Strategies from the
perspective of action-research as teacher education proposal”
This study presents the experience of action-research included in a teacher development program
focused on improving pedagogical interaction from a sociocultural perspective. From 2012 to
2015, three cohorts of early childhood teachers participated in this program. They were part of a
private non-profit institution that serves children from 3 months to 4 years old living in poverty
and under vulnerable conditions.
 One of the main objectives of the program has been promoting skills and knowledge related
to learning mediation, from an inclusive vision of the pedagogical processes, using action-research
as the main methodology for reflecting on teaching practices. Another main objective of the
program is to foster the professionalization of early childhood teachers, who were regarded as
designers, implementers and evaluators of the curriculum, with a relevant role in the transformation
and construction of applied knowledge. This approach is necessary because teachers were part of
an institution founded during the 90s which has been changing, from a child-care welfare
perspective, towards an educational approach.

This was a two-year program with two main focuses. The first year was focused on teaching
practices that allow the appropriation of the mediating role. The second year was focused on the
reflective process that arises from the development of professional learning communities in order
to promote changes at the different levels of the educational system (family, nursery school,
teachers, etc.) through participation, feedback, and teamwork. The program methodology involved
onsite and online work sessions, both configured as a dialogical, constructive, and reflective
experience. Two on-site sessions were carried out in one year. Each session lasted 32 hours
distributed in five days and was held outside the nurseries in a central place with easy access to
participants. Online sessions were carried out, in the first years, as a video supported reflection
process which included three video recordings of teachers’ practices uploaded to a Moodle
platform. Tutors provided feedback about the videos, working as ‘critical friends’, bringing new
insights and ideas that would promote teachers’ reflection on their own practice (Kemmis and
McTaggart, 1988). This feedback process enabled tutors to observe the appropriation and
application of theoretical tools developed in the classroom. In addition, this allows group analysis
and discussion to be generated during onsite sessions, in order to clarify and systematize the core
concepts promoted in this program.

Action-research was chosen as the method for developing teachers’ practices by a

collaborative reflection practice. In order to achieve this process, during the first year, onsite work
sessions were focused on the mediation process in teaching practice and online work sessions were
organized as video supported reflection. The reflection linked to the video supported reflection process
contributes to the development of self-awareness and long-term transformational pedagogical
practices (Kemmis, 2007). The video supported reflection cycle was related to action-research as
follows (see Figure 1):

• Teachers planned and implemented a lesson focused on a mediation process. Lessons were
video recorded and uploaded to a Moodle platform.

• Teachers evaluated and reflected on the teaching experience by submitting an analytic log
about the mediated interactions.

• The tutor / ‘critical friend’ provided feedback on the analysis of the practice, helping to
problematize the experience.

 Teachers prepared and implemented the lesson again.

[Figure 1 near here]

In the second year, the approach to teaching practices remained. During the onsite work
sessions professional learning communities were also implemented, in order to promote the
sustainability of the experience. These communities were arranged according to teachers’
locations, having monthly meetings, in which tutors participated by using videoconference
software (e.g.: Skype, Google Talk, etc.), due to the distance between the tutors’ and the teachers’
locations. These sessions aimed to reflect on pedagogical problems and develop intervention plans
according to the action-research framework. In the second year, the action-research cycle was
organized as follows (see Figure 2):

 Teachers in the professional learning communities defined the main problems of

teaching practice
 Teachers reflected on those problems
 Teachers collaboratively prepared action plans
 Every teacher, individually, implemented the action plans in their nursery schools
 Teachers collectively analysed and evaluated the action plans results
[Figure 2 near here]
 It was expected that in the first year teachers would develop strong knowledge and practical
experience about the meaning of mediation by engaging in an action-research approach, supported
by onsite sessions and video supported reflection. In the second year, it was expected that
professional learning communities would develop action plans according to an action-research
framework that was focused on teaching practice and collaborative reflection.

Sample
This study analyses the experience of 70 early childhood teachers from the first cohort of the
program that in the second year comprised ten professional learning communities. Three tutors of
the program were also interviewed. One of them is a psychologist and the other two are teachers,
all of them hold a Masters in Cognitive Development and have long experience in teacher education
grounded in the Cognitive Modifiability approach and Action-Research perspective. Early
childhood teachers who participated in the program came from six different cities in Chile and
worked in nurseries with children from 0 to 4 years who lived in vulnerable conditions. Participants
were informed of the aims of this research and signed an agreement to allow the use of their
material for research purpose.

Materials and analysis

In this report, ten action plans developed by ten professional learning communities were analysed
and complemented with the analysis of written reports prepared by 70 participants. The reports
include two sections related to an overall evaluation, challenges and aspects to improve. Three
tutors were also interviewed in order to include other perspectives to deeply analyse the experience
and identify some of the critical aspects of action-research practices described by Kemmis (2006).
These materials were analysed through a qualitative content analysis.

Results
Results are presented in two sections. The first part focuses on the action plans developed by the
participants in the context of the action-research process during the first cohort. The second part
presents the reflection on action-research developed by the first cohort participants and by the
tutors.
Intervention Plans
The results show that most of the intervention plans were focused on professional development
using video supported reflection, replicating the main teaching strategy developed by the program.
This process was carried out by the participants in their nursery schools, and was focused on the
assistant teachers who co-teach in their classrooms. Participants developed a series of materials to
improve comprehension of a topic, for example, a guideline for teaching practices and a portfolio
to generate process evidence. This work is linked to promoting pedagogical leadership in the
nursery schools.

The video supported reflection was focused on the quality of interaction with children, based
on the theoretical framework of mediated learning experience that was also the main conceptual
topic developed in the program. It was possible to observe that action plans were focused on
improving the quality of interactions, especially those related to mediation criteria.

Other interventions were aimed at family involvement in education, in order to encourage

parents to be involved in promoting learning-mediated experiences at home. The strategies
developed with families include an informative role using flyers, information panels, and written
communication, and a participative role holding workshops and meetings.

Reflecting on action-research process: participants and tutors’ voices

To understand participants’ perception of the action-research process, written reports were
analysed. These reports show that the participants give different meanings and interpretations to
action-research. These ideas can be organized according to the rationale that underlies the reflection
made by the participants. In that respect, no technical rationale was found, only practical and
critical one

Identifying a practical rationale, some participants relate action-research to the development

of the skills that were fostered in this process, such as self-observations or reflection on practice,
as shown in the following quotes:

“Research is like a reflective practice that allows to guide and evaluate the decisions”.
 “Action-research is a way to develop and hold a closer look to the educational process through the
problematization. The look turns toward us (the teachers) and we understand the key role of our
actions. Then we learn to accept responsibility”.

For other participants, these practical implications were linked to an increase in the relevance
of their work to local reality, based on what is observed in the classroom, instead of external guides
provided by the central administration. Some of these ideas are shown in the next quote:

“Through action-research … my pedagogical practice was more relevant, as the decisions were
made based on the reality…”

For some teachers, action-research had an impact on different levels: teachers’ knowledge
and practices, and eventually children’s learning. Participants recognized a change in their
teaching-learning ideas that influenced their practices, which were more relevant and focused on
promoting active learning and developing students’ potential. Children’s learning could also be
fostered by action-research by promotion of change in some skills and even in their lives, as shown
in the following quotes:

“If we apply this from the early years, I’m sure we can have more curious children, able to
transform their futures…”

“Our role as action-researchers is relevant to the development of our practices, because decisions
are based on our own experience. This promotes better (and) more relevant teaching processes …
based on reflection on curriculum implementation. This generates improvement that might be
implemented in the classroom”.

A critical rationale was also identified in the participants’ reports. Some of them were focused
on the empowerment and leadership that were promoted by action-research. This is linked to the
pedagogical leadership implied in the action plans developed by the participants, and with a process
of validation of teachers’ voice that might be related to a professionalization process, which is
especially relevant in the context of a hierarchical institution, as one teacher stated:

“We have started to validate and trust the opinion of the educator … because for many years we
were passive acceptors”
 This is also related to the generation of practical knowledge articulated with theory, fostered
by the process of action-research. Participants perceived that valid knowledge emerges from this
process, which is closely related to the theory. This situation is another form of professionalization,
in terms of recognizing other teachers’ roles. This is related to the following extract:

“We made decisions to transform the process and generate practical knowledge”

Other reports identified an ethical implication of action-research that is related to the analysis
of the values and aims of education, especially those transmitted by teachers’ practices. In that
respect, participants understood the broader impact of teaching, as shown in the following extract:

“Action-research is an ethical enquiry, in which we, as teachers, reflect on how to teach in a

consistent and coherent way and provide the values and aims of education at the same time”.

Finally, participants also mentioned that through action-research they were able to become
critical agents, especially about educational policies, as shown in the following extract:

“(We) transform ourselves into critical agents who critically question childhood policies, in order
to improve our practices”.

In relation to the tutors’ perspective, different topics were addressed. One of them was related
to the difficulties perceived during the action-research process. These were clearly focused on two
levels of problems: the relation with the institution at the regional and central administration and
the participants’ misunderstanding of some steps of the action-research cycle.

Participants’ main difficulties, both in the first and second year of the program, were linked
to specific processes, like problematization and evaluation. They were able to make perfect
diagnoses of the situation, but they needed constant supervision to elaborate the problems, which
means developing a deep understanding of them, analysing the weaknesses and strengths, and
focusing on the proximal and distal causes. Besides, participants also needed support to evaluate
the action-research cycle, not only in methodological aspects, but also in the reflection necessary
to understand the results. This was especially relevant during the information gathering process,
when teachers needed supervision and constant feedback on the process.

The relation with the institution was another main difficulty of the process. The institution
misunderstood some of the action-research features and proposed a normative perspective. It was
expected that the action-research approach would be implemented, since it is mentioned in
curriculum documents. For the institution, teachers should implement some research about their
practices. This instrumental purpose of action-research had to be re-framed by the tutors’ team, due
to the different aspects that were emerging during the process, which were far from this first
purpose. Fortunately, people in the institution were willing to make some changes by allowing and
promoting some of the actions implemented during the program. This action-research process also
meant an institutional change, since some of the hierarchical features of the institution were being
questioned.

One example of these difficulties in the teacher’s process was described by one of the tutors.
In her group, during on site work sessions, some topics from the action-research plans emerged,
but during the work in the professional learning communities, new topics emerged. The
hierarchical structure of the institution was evident when teachers thought they should keep the
initial topics and not the new ones, showing a tendency to prioritise the topics defined by the tutor.
Fortunately, this was a well-developed group and it was easy to re-empower them, which was
helped by the tutor setting a necessary distance.

These difficulties acknowledged by the team of tutors were constantly subject to reflection,
which led to some changes in the way the program was organized. A key point in this process was
the experience obtained by developing the program. This was one of the main contributions to
promote changes. This process of change was supported by a metacognitive process in the team
and the practice of continuous reflection that allowed some critical processes to be identified For
example, it was crucial to modify the tutors’ role in order to allow new leadership to emerge from
the participants. Moreover, tutors perceived that the team adopted an enquiring approach during
the process, which resulted in a continuing reflection on their own practice in the onsite and online
sessions.

Regarding changes related to teachers, the tutors identified important transformations. They
observed a process of empowerment, related to teachers’ perception of being agents of social
change, mentioning that teachers become aware that they are responsible for current and future
social conditions. The change at a practical level was also evident for tutors, especially in the
quality of interaction fostered by the teachers.
 Finally, the tutors perceived a change in the idea of action-research, not only from the
teachers, but also from the regional and central administration. At the beginning of the program,
action-research was strictly focused on the classroom and closely related to the standardized
evaluations performed in the classroom. This perspective represented a prescriptive vision of
action-research linked to the demands of the Chilean Curricular Policies. This image changed to a
broader perspective on action-research, based on a critical and ethical consideration of the teaching
process.

Two years after the program was implemented, tutors informally kept in contact with some
of the participants, typically with the professional learning communities that were developed
during the program. In this respect, the tutors mentioned that some of these groups had
implemented actions at a regional level, like conferences with other teachers or workshops to share
this experience with their colleagues. These groups have been officially recognised and have
become autonomous, specifically with respect to some funds derived from the central
administration to support local initiatives developed by the professional learning communities.

Discussion
This experience illustrates how action-research can be a relevant approach for early childhood
teacher education. As expressed by the participants, action-research provides teachers with tools to
become more reflective about their practice. They are critically involved in analysing the way they
interact with children and the consequences of these interactions in children’s lives and futures.
These results show that action-research has not only pedagogical implications, but also critical and
transformative meanings. It was observed that when teachers analysed their practices, at a
superficial level, they were acquiring teaching tools, but at a deep level they learned that change
begins with themselves. This was observed in the empowerment mentioned by the teachers and
tutors. This process might lead to the feeling of being an agent of change and not just waiting for
“others” to change, becoming “transformative intellectuals” (Giroux, 1990). Nevertheless, this
process of change and empowerment also requires the institution to change. In that respect, teachers
request a change because they have already changed. At a pedagogical level, since the participants
have deeply analysed their practice in order to enrich it, they developed a process for appropriating
these tools (Rogoff, 1997). This contributes to the empowerment of pedagogical practice, moving
it to a critical level, where an emancipator sense of education emerges. As Carr and Kemmis (1986)
state, action-research is closely committed to transformation in a broader sense, which includes an
organizational and institutional level. In that respect, this experience is a good example of how
teachers’ changes can also influence institutions.

The critical implications of the action-research process were also evident in the ethical
dimension addressed by the teachers. In this regard, the participants were involved in a formative
experience that not only required a deep change in their pedagogical thoughts and beliefs, but also
fostered an ethical commitment. As teachers changed, so did their teaching, thus they became
aware of the need for their practice to be consistent. This goes beyond a pedagogical issue and
emerges as a social responsibility linked to the teachers’ role, especially in the context of high
vulnerability and poverty.

Action-research has been used in early childhood education (Fisher and Wood, 2012; Rust,
2007; Moran, 2007) with different focuses. In some cases, teachers have adopted action-research
as a method to improve their teaching and to become part of a process of permanent reflection on
their practices. In other cases, like this experience, action-research was a way to introduce teachers
to a dynamic of analysing their interactions in the context of a teacher professional development
program. In both cases, the main purpose is for teachers to become enquiring agents, who are
involved in continuous reflection on their practice. Undoubtedly, teachers of all levels will benefit
from this inquiring approach, and early childhood teachers in particular might have some additional
positive consequences related to their professionalization. Since reflective practice and enquiry are
important features of the teaching profession, action-research will be a relevant approach to provide
early childhood teachers with the skills they need if they are to be seen as educational professionals.

These results show the positive implications of action-research, but they should also warn
researchers about using this tool in a context of high accountability. In this respect, some tensions
emerged from the analysis and information gathering in this report. The first is a tension between
the aims of the team that implement action-research and the aims of the institution that
commissions this methodology. In this experience, it was a dialogical process between the team
and the institution, based on a negotiation of meanings about understandings of action-research.
This process was also reinforced by the pressure from the teachers and the transformative sense of
action-research became evident to the institution. Even though it has not been investigated, it is
possible that some dynamics inside the institution changed, especially regarding the validation of
teachers’ voices and the teachers’ progressive autonomy. This is evidenced by the funds that some
professional learning communities have received to implement some actions, but this aspect should
be studied in more depth in future research.

The second tension is related to the role of action-research as reproduction or resistance. The
first reflects an instrumental approach, where action-research is seen as a tool to comply with the
teachers’ standards related to research and reflection, in line with the main demands of neoliberal
society. This perspective limits the possibilities of change and only links action-research to a
technical skill that might work in the reproduction of practices, in contrast with a resistance
perspective. Action-research is a way to transform society, in order to promote social justice and
become more inclusive. In that respect, it can be a way to resist the standardization and
accountability that characterize the neoliberal system.

This tension has also been acknowledged by Carr and Kemmis (2005), who identified some
technical approaches to action-research nowadays. This tension reflects the question of ‘what for?’
instead of ‘how?’ (Kemmis 2006). In reproductive forms of action-research, the focus is on how to
improve teaching in order to achieve better evaluations, while in resistant forms the aim is the
transformation of the students, families and even society that can be fostered and supported by the
teacher.

The third tension addressed the use of action-research: as an accountability tool or as a

transformative tool. In a context of neoliberal policies, action-research might also be used as a way
to improve specific instructional strategies or implement some government programs without any
deep analysis (Kemmis, 2006). These situations contrast with the transformative aspect of action-
research, which looks for a process that “emancipates students, teachers and societies from
irrational forms of thinking, unproductive ways of working, unsatisfying forms of life for teachers
or students or their families, or from unjust forms of social relations in schools or societies”
(Kemmis, 2006, 463).

If early childhood teacher professional development is distant from teachers’ experience,

classrooms and teaching issues and if it establishes itself with an academic and reproductive
perspective, there will be a disconnection between the change and the meaning of change. This
shows the need to redirect attention to the culture of teachers if the intended impact of teacher
professional development is to be achieved. This focus also highlights the critical, investigative
and transformative role of teachers who use action-research as a catalyst for new cultures of
inclusion and plural coexistence.

References

Alarcón, J., M. Castro, C. Frites, and C. Gajardo. 2015. “Desafíos de la educación preescolar en
Chile: Ampliar la cobertura, mejorar la calidad y evitar el acoplamiento.” [Preschool
Education Challenges in Chile: Enlarge the Coverage, Improve Quality and Avoid Attach
Effect.] Estudios Pedagógicos 41 (2): 287–303. doi:10.4067/S0718-07052015000200017.
Ávalos, B. 2007. “El desarrollo profesional continúo de los docentes: lo que nos dice la experiencia
internacional y de la región latinoamericana.” [Teacher Continuous Professional
Development: What International and Latin American Experiences Tell Us.] Revista
Pensamiento Educativo 41 (2): 77–99.
Barnett, W. 1998. “Long-term Cognitive and Academic Effects of Early Childhood Education on
Children in Poverty.” Preventive Medicine 27 (2): 204–207. doi:10.1006/pmed.1998.0275.
Boog, B. 2003. “The Emancipatory Character of Action Research, its History and the Present State
of the Art.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 13 (6): 426–438.
doi:10.1002/casp.748.
Borko, H. 2004. “Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.”
Educational Researcher 33 (8): 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003.
Burchinal, M., N. Vandergrift, R. Pianta, and A. Mashburn. 2010. “Threshold analysis of
association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-
kindergarten programs.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2): 166–176.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.004.
Buysse, V., K. Sparkman, and P. Wesley. 2003. “Communities of Practice: Connecting What We
Know with What We Do.” Exceptional Children 69 (3): 263–277.
doi:10.1177/001440290306900301.
Camilli, G., S. Vargas, S. Ryan, and W. Barnett. 2010. “Meta-analysis of the Effects of Early
Education Interventions on Cognitive and Social Development.” Teachers College Record
112 (3): 579–620.
Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action-research.
Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 2005. “Staying Critical.” Educational Action Research 13 (3): 347–358.
doi:10.1080/09650790500200316.
Cortázar, A. 2015. “Long-term Effects of Public Early Childhood Education on Academic
Achievement in Chile.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32: 13–22.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.003.
Davis, Julia, and Sue Cooke. 1998. “Parents as Partners for Educational Change: The Ashgrove
Healthy School Environment Project.” In Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for
Social Justice in Education, edited by Bill Atweh, Stephen Kemmis, and Patricia Weeks, 59–
85. London: Routledge.
Dunn, L. 1993. “Proximal and Distal Features of Day Care Quality and Children’s Development.”
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 8 (2): 167–192. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80089-4.
Elliott, J. 1994. La investigación-acción en educación [Action-research in Education]. Madrid:
Editorial Morata.
Eurofound. 2015. Working Conditions, Training of Early Childhood Care Workers and Quality of
Services – A Systematic Review. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Feuerstein, Reuven. 1990. “The Theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability.” In Learning and
Thinking Styles: Classroom Interaction, edited by Barbara Presseisen, 68–134. Washington,
DC: National Education Association.Feuerstein, R., L. Falik, Y. Rand, and R. Feuerstein.
2006. The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
Feuerstein, R., L. Falik, Y. Rand, and R. Feuerstein. 2006. The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment
Program. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
Fisher, J., and E. Wood. 2012. “Changing Educational Practice in the Early Years through
Practitioner-led Action Research: An Adult–Child Interaction Project.” International Journal
of Early Years Education 20 (2): 114–129. doi:10.1080/09669760.2012.715400.
Giroux, H. 1990. Los profesores como intelectuales. Hacia una pedagogía crítica del aprendizaje
[Teachers as Intellectuals: Towards a Critical Pedagogy of Learning]. Barcelona: Ediciones
Paidós.
Herrera, M., M. Mathiesen, J. Merino, and I. Recart. 2005. “Learning Contexts for Young Children
in Chile: Process Quality Assessment in Preschool Centres.” International Journal of Early
Years Education 13 (1): 13–27. doi:10.1080/09669760500048253.
Howes, C. 1997. “Children’s Experiences in Center-based Child Care as a Function of Teacher
Background and Adult: Child Ratio.” Merril-Palmer Quarterly 43 (3): 404–425.
John-Steiner, V., and H. Mahn. 1996. “Sociocultural Approaches to Learning and Development:
A Vygotskian Framework.” Educational Psychologist 31 (3–4): 191–206. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep3103&4_4.
Kemmis, S. 2006. “Participatory Action Research and the Public Sphere.” Educational Action
Research 14 (4): 459–476. doi:10.1080/09650790600975593.
Kemmis, Stephen. 2007. “Epilogue: A Radical Proposal.” In Enabling Praxis: Challenges for
Education, edited by Stephen Kemmis and Tracy Smith, 287–295. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1988. Cómo planificar la investigación-acción [How to Plan
Action- research]. Barcelona: Alertes.
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 2005. “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and
the Public Sphere.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman
Denzin and Yvona Lincoln, 559–603. London: Sage.
Kemmis, Stephen, and Mervyn Wilkinson. 1998. “Participatory Action Research and the Study of
Practice.” In Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in Education, edited
by Bill Atweh, Stephen Kemmis, and Patricia Weeks, 21–36. London: Routledge.
Lieberman, A. 1995. “Practices that Support Teacher Development.” Phi delta kappa 76 (8): 591–
596. Lingard, L., M. Albert, and W. Levinson. 2008. “Grounded Theory, Mixed Methods,
and Action Research.” British Medical Journal 337: 459–461.
doi:10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47.
Minister of Education. 2001. Bases Curriculares de la Enseñanza Parvularia [Curricular Bases of
Early Childhood Education]. Santiago de Chile: Ministerio de Educación de Chile.
Minister of Social Development. 2016. “Education: Synthesis of Results.” CASEN Survey.
Accessed December 29, 2016. http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-
multidimensional/ casen/docs/CASEN_2015_Resultados_educacion.pdf
Moran, M. 2007. “Collaborative Action Research and Project Work: Promising Practices for
Developing Collaborative Inquiry among Early Childhood Preservice Teachers.” Teaching
and Teacher Education 23 (4): 418–431. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.008.
NICHD. 2005. “Early Child Care and Children’s Development in the Primary Grades: Follow-up
Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.” American Educational Research
Journal 42 (3): 537–570. NICHD ECCRN. 2000. “The Relation of Child Care to Cognitive
and Language Development.” Child Development 71 (4): 960–980. NICHD ECCRN. 2002.
“Child-care Structure, Process, Outcome: Direct and Indirect Effects of Child-care Quality
on Young Children’s Development.” Psychological Science 13 (3): 199–206.
OREALC/UNESCO. 2013. Antecedentes y Criterios para la Elaboración de Políticas Docentes en
América Latina y el Caribe [Background and Criteria for the Development of Teacher
Policies in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Santiago: UNESCO.
Pardo, M., and C. Woodrow. 2014. “Improving the Quality of Early Childhood Education in Chile:
Tensions Between Public Policy and Teacher Discourses Over the Schoolarisation of Early
Childhood Education.” International Journal of Early Childhood 46 (1): 101–115.
doi:10.1007/s13158-014-0102-0.
Peralta, M. 2011. “Early childhood Education and Public Care Policies in Chile: A Historical
Perspective to Analyze the Present.” International Journal of Child Care and Education
Policy 5 (1): 17–27. doi:10.1007/2288-6729-5-1-17.
Rogoff, Barbara. 1997. “Los tres planos de la actividad sociocultural: apropiación participativa,
participación guiada y aprendizaje.” [The Three Levels of Socio-cultural Activity:
Participatory Appropriation, Guided Participation and Learning.] In La mente sociocultural.
Aproximaciones teóricas y aplicadas [The Sociocultural Mind. Theoretical and Applied
Approaches], edited by James Wertsch, Pablo del Río, and Amelia Álvarez, 111–128.
Madrid: Narcea. Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje.
Rust, Frances. 2007. “Action Research in Early Childhood Contexts.” In Qualitative Research in
Early Childhood Education, edited by Amos Hatch, 95–108. New York: Routledge.
Strasser, K., M. Lissi, and M. Silva. 2009. “Gestión del Tiempo en 12 Salas Chilenas de
Kindergarten: Recreo, Colación y Algo de Instrucción.” [Time Management in 12 Chilean
Kindergarten Classrooms: Recess, Snack and a Little Teaching.] Psykhe 18 (1): 85–96.
doi:10.4067/S0718-22282009000100008.
Sun, Yulan, Mónica Correa, Álvaro Zapata, and Diego Carrasco. 2011. “Resultados: qué dice la
Evaluación Docente acerca de la enseñanza en Chile.” [Results. What the Teacher Evaluation
says about Teaching in Chile.] In La evaluación docente en Chile [The Teacher Evaluation
in Chile], edited by Jorge Manzi, Roberto González, and Yulan Sun, 91–136. Santiago:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Escuela de Psicología, MIDE UC.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1988. El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores [Development of
Higher Psychological Process]. Ciudad de México: Grijalbo.
 Figure1.Action research cycle in Year 1.

Teachers
plan and
implement
a lesson
(video)
Teachers
evaluate
Teachers re and reflect
–elaborate on the
the lesson teaching
experience
(analytic
log)
The tutor /
‘critical
friend’
provides
feedback

Figure 2: Action research cycle in Year 2.

Definition of
teaching
practice
main
problems

Analysis and Reflection

continuous among
evaluation teachers

Action plans
individual Action plans
implementat elaboration
ion

View publication stats